Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 6-11-2014 | Jeffrey Tomkins PhD

Posted on 06/11/2014 12:28:07 PM PDT by fishtank

Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution

by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3

Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: creation; jellyfish

ICR article image.

1 posted on 06/11/2014 12:28:07 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33 (KJV)
2 posted on 06/11/2014 12:34:57 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

One doesn’t have to be a 6K creationist to be put off by the hubris of the people who proselyltize science and evolution as something it is not.

Even an atheist can see the sophomoric nature of the science zealots, who are really not particularly scientific in outlook and philosphy.

Biology is still so nascent as a science that the know it all hubris is laughable, but also irritating, even disgusting.

We will know something about evolution in 10-20 years when many many more genomes are fully sequenced.

Until then pretty much nothing is known about it.


3 posted on 06/11/2014 12:36:40 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Oops. I was thinking of another king of “comb jelly.”


4 posted on 06/11/2014 12:37:04 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
I mean "another kind of comb jelly."
5 posted on 06/11/2014 12:37:32 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Biology is still so nascent as a science that the know it all hubris is laughable, but also irritating, even disgusting.

Whoever wrote this article assumes he knows enough to be able to declare that evolution cannot possibly account for the comb jelly genome.

6 posted on 06/11/2014 12:40:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Whoever wrote this article assumes he knows enough to be able to declare that evolution cannot possibly account for the comb jelly genome.”

And?


7 posted on 06/11/2014 12:47:27 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Whoever wrote this article assumes he knows enough to be able to declare that evolution cannot possibly account for the comb jelly genome.

Yes, he assumes that he knows enough about both evolution and comb jellies to assert that the two are irreconcilable with each other.

Regards,

8 posted on 06/11/2014 12:49:58 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Creationists are never perplexed.

God did it.

I have no idea why scientists even bother. We already know the answer.

God did it.


9 posted on 06/11/2014 12:52:56 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

The three hardest words for modern scientists to say is “we don’t know” or “we’re not sure”. I’d give ‘em more credit is they just admitted it every once in a while. But then, the government grants might start drying up if they do.

CC


10 posted on 06/11/2014 1:00:36 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Cilia of Gold.........................(Okay who knows what I’m talking about?).................


11 posted on 06/11/2014 1:02:49 PM PDT by Red Badger (Soon there will be another American Civil War. Will make the first one seem like a Tea Party........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I, like you agree that "God did it". I guess the fun in biology for me is how God did it. I sometimes think the complexity of our world, and the universe in general is something God gave us to keep us amused and engaged. Kind of like how theme parks keep you entertained while you're waiting in line for a ride.

JMO

CC

12 posted on 06/11/2014 1:08:32 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often
not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh.
These are as follows.
(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation
occurred only once.
The other assumptions all follow from the second one.
(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.
(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.
For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the “ General Theory of Evolution.”
The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to
take place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal,though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of this evidence.

IMPLICATIONS OF
EVOLUTION
By G. A. KERKUT
M.A., PH.D. 1960. Pergamon Press.


13 posted on 06/11/2014 1:14:00 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
And?

Did you need more?

14 posted on 06/11/2014 1:15:18 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the “ General Theory of Evolution.”

So basically you're assuming they have these assumptions, and complaining that they won't question their assumptions.

15 posted on 06/11/2014 1:19:12 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Well, it was all ready obvious.

I thought maybe you were making a point rather than stating the obvious.


16 posted on 06/11/2014 1:20:10 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Another viewpoint:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140521-comb-jelly-ctenophores-oldest-animal-family-tree-science/

I don’t see how this gums up evolution at all.


17 posted on 06/11/2014 1:27:05 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

From the perspective of wondering how the whole process came about, that “answer” is unsatisfying.

The notion of “spoken, and it all came instantly into existence” does not rule out the proposition that He made everything about 20 minutes ago; any “evidence” to the contrary is likewise subject to the proposition that it was all made in that condition.


18 posted on 06/11/2014 1:39:16 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

for the record, there is an implied /s at the end of my commentary.


19 posted on 06/11/2014 1:43:57 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative; Moonman62

The three hardest words for modern scientists to say is “we don’t know” or “we’re not sure”. I’d give ‘em more credit is they just admitted it every once in a while. But then, the government grants might start drying up if they do.

<><><><><

Read the article Moonman linked to in post 17 in this thread.

The scientist pretty much says exactly that ... we’re not sure, we don’t understand, but we’re still looking.


20 posted on 06/11/2014 1:53:02 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Read the article Moonman linked to in post 17 in this thread.

Heck, just look at the first article referenced in the ICR article--it's titled "Jelly Genome Mystery." That's a pretty straightforward admission of "we don't know."

21 posted on 06/11/2014 3:01:12 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
From the perspective of wondering how the whole process came about, that “answer” is unsatisfying.

That's the problem with the explanation offered by ICR. Scientists are at least trying to figure out not only how but why these animals are the way they are. The ICR folks never ask, Why did the Omnipotent Creator make animals with genes He used nowhere else? And why did He leave out genes He used in his other creations--and do so only in these particular animals? The ICR approach is an intellectual dead end.

22 posted on 06/11/2014 3:06:18 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The Nature News and Views reported that others disagree that these findings indicate ctenophores are the oldest group.

This is a great piece of work and well done article in Nature by the (mainly) Florida group.

Hard to say what “gummed up” means but the findings are extremely unexpected and makes evolutionary relationships and descent much less understood.


23 posted on 06/11/2014 3:18:05 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Yeah. It’s not really scientists, real ones doing the work, who won’t say they don’t know.

But it is the ones who use science for their political or religious ends.

Those who use - misuse actually - science as a weapon.

There’s plenty of these abusers of science here at free rep. It’s not just libs and lefties.


24 posted on 06/11/2014 3:23:59 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“The ICR approach is an intellectual dead end.”

You figured that out all on your own?

You are the clever one.


25 posted on 06/11/2014 3:26:30 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Hard to say what “gummed up” means but the findings are extremely unexpected...

The position of the ctenophores has been debated for several years. I don't know why you say the results are completely unexpected. From Wiki:

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria,[48][49] sister to the Cnidaria,[50][51][52][53] sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria,[54][55][56] and sister to all other animal phyla.[57][58] A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla.[59][60][61][62] A more recent study comparing the sequenced genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi with other sequenced animal genomes showed multiple lines of evidence supporting ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals.[63] This position suggests that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage.[63] Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lacks any true hox genes.[64]
makes evolutionary relationships and descent much less understood.

In general, or only concerning ctenophores? I'm not sure I agree in either case.

26 posted on 06/11/2014 3:37:34 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Your doing the science as weapon dance. Can’t be wrong. Can’t not know and have expected everything.

The fact is, this finding is astounding and comes nearly as close as there can be to a finding that disproved the whole of evolutionary theory as understood.

If you don’t understand that you don’t know biology or evolutionary theory.

The interesting thing is, it does not negate evolution, despite “gumming it up”.

You think too much like the ICR types.


27 posted on 06/11/2014 3:51:33 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

You can’t defend your position, so you attack me. Nice.


28 posted on 06/11/2014 3:58:42 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Play the wounded warrior. Get off it.

Don’t be defensive. You don’t need to be.

What position are you taking?

None that I can see, other than this doesn’t mean what ICR says it means. As if that is an issue.

If one asks about findings that might disprove evolution, answers are along the lines of if we found life that used a totally separate genetic matter or code etc...

Finding a lineage that does not use half the genes used by every other lineage known and having half again a completely novel and unique set of genes would be along the same lines.


29 posted on 06/11/2014 4:06:01 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Jelly gums up EVERYTHING when eaten on bread with peanut butter.


30 posted on 06/11/2014 4:52:07 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
Comb jelly.


31 posted on 06/11/2014 5:00:36 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

I’m dating myself but, in my uninformed youth, I used to put that stuff in my hair.

It was called Brylcreem, and I never realized I was supposed to eat it on bread.


32 posted on 06/11/2014 5:04:42 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Anyone that places scientist and evolution in the same sentence habitually is deeply confused about the difference between science and propaganda.


33 posted on 06/11/2014 5:06:49 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

For that ever-charming plastic look!

My father used to rub that crap in my hair when I was about 2 or 3 years old.


34 posted on 06/11/2014 5:09:21 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
My position is that this isn't a major problem for evolutionary science, and it doesn't gum up evolution. It comes down to one question that I'll take from the Wiki excerpt I posted.
...ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla.

35 posted on 06/11/2014 5:46:18 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“My position is that this isn’t a major problem for evolutionary science”

I agree.

What it illustrates is how evolution can accommodate pretty much any finding.

I like and generally agree with what the authors wrote in their concluding paragraph.

“These findings are of relevance for regenerative and synthetic biology in designing novel signalling pathways and systems. In this case, ctenophores and their genomes present matchless examples of ‘experiments’ in nature and the possible preservation of ancient molecular toolkits lost in other animal lineages.”


36 posted on 06/11/2014 5:55:09 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Don’t imply “/s”. There are a lot of people who believe such things in earnest.


37 posted on 06/11/2014 7:05:53 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
You figured that out all on your own?
You are the clever one.

I'm sorry, did I run over your tricycle or something?

38 posted on 06/11/2014 8:27:20 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I am assuminng nothing.


39 posted on 06/11/2014 10:14:55 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
I am assuminng nothing.

Then you should be able to prove your assertions. Can you do that?

40 posted on 06/12/2014 5:13:51 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson